Posted on 12/30/2003 12:14:06 PM PST by mrustow
Some Republicans now say that affirmative action is here to stay, so the best we can do is to "contain" it. That means limiting affirmative action to blacks and American Indians. (Many Republicans have long felt that way, but some are now actually talking containment.)
Containment is surrender. This ain’t the Cold War; this is the war for the Constitution. It’s also a low-intensity (increasingly, high-intensity) race war. But the containment strategy is worse than a straightforward surrender. For while GOP operatives intend all along to surrender for what they think is a fair price, they seek to deceive Republican voters into thinking that the operatives will resist the expansion of affirmative action.
In her betrayal of precedent and the Constitution alike, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor enshrined the notion of “diversity” in constitutional precedent. (But then, Pres. Bush argued for “diversity” before Justice O’Connor did.) Under diversity plus the now common perversions of the 14th Amendment (the rights of some groups to privileged treatment before the law), you cannot limit affirmative action to blacks and American Indians. So, either you do the right thing, and fight affirmative action every step of the way, or you make those less wealthy and well-connected than you, bend over and take it.
Indeed, as an astute correspondent observed,
“Politically speaking, it isn't remotely likely that the Bush administration would get behind an effort to limit AA to blacks and American Indians. The group Bush and Rove are trying to court - and also use to prove their non-racist credentials to politically moderate suburban whites who might otherwise be influenced by their PC liberal neighbors - is Hispanics, and they would not benefit from such a containment policy.”
(Note, too, that the well-to-do "conservative" whites courted by the GOP, whose operatives apparently think -- to paraphrase Steve Sailer -- that some groups’ votes count more than others -- want to maintain an endless supply of illegal immigrant nannies, housekeepers, cooks, gardeners and employees for their businesses, all of whom they can pay less and abuse more than American workers -- the same status quo sought by the well-to-do, "progressive" whites the Democrats are courting. Meanwhile, the white American working and middle classes are going broke, paying for illegal immigration.)
If we go back to circa 1970, we see that containment was one of the original rationalizations for affirmative action – ‘It’s just for blacks.’ (And then, "blacks" meant American-born blacks, not West Indian, Caribbean, South American or African-born, immigrant blacks.) Similarly, over the past few years, I have heard talk of “outreach” as some sort of “substitute” for affirmative action. That’s another rehabilitated, 1970 rationalization for apartheid, without even changing the term. There can be no outreach, because the very act of reaching out to blacks would itself constitute a racial preference, but more importantly, it would give cover for the same old apartheid system. It was ruses like “outreach,” “remedial education,” etc. that got the ball rolling in the first place. (A few years ago, Liddy Dole screwed up and got it right, in responding to critics of affirmative action, “But what about outreach?” For her, the two were synonymous.) I would appreciate it, if folks bandying about terms like “containment,” “outreach,” etc., would just come out of the closet, and admit that they support affirmative action. That way, they cause less mischief.
But they won’t come out. I think such folks are GOP dead-enders, who will do anything to ensure that the nation does NOT confront racial and ethnic apartheid, as long as they think this will help George W. Bush get re-elected in 2004, and thereby help them feather their own personal nests. Remember, party propagandists talk in terms of principles, but think in terms of dollars and cents; the rest of us pay the tab. The technical term party insiders would use to describe those paying for their cozy little set-up is "losers."
Republican operatives have also decided that illegal immigration is here to stay, so the best we can do is to legalize, er, I mean, contain it. Following lead lemming Karl Rove, the dead-enders still fantasize that they can win over Hispanics, even though as Steve Sailer and Sam Francis have repeatedly pointed out, no evidence supports such fevered dreams. The President has just unveiled his new amnesty program for 9 million-13 million illegal immigrants, not counting their kin (all of whom - illegals and kin - will immediately be privileged over native-born, white citizens), and the tens of millions of new illegals the amnesty will inspire to invade America. And in the age of the "matricula consular," new "relations" can be manufactured and sold at will.
We are already hearing the equivalent of "containment" talk surrounding this newest amnesty, similar to the talk that was used to sell the 1986 amnesty. Then it was "secure borders," "stiffer sanctions for employers hiring illegals," blah blah blah. Now it's "stricter entry controls, including increased use of technology at the border," "steps toward better enforcement of current visa restrictions and reporting requirements," blah blah blah. The mixture of irrelevance -- because illegals sidestep official entry points -- and contempt for citizens' intelligence, has Rove's fingerprints all over it.
And I'm not even getting into the countless illegal stealth amnesties that have been smuggled in behind the back of the American people since 1986.
Why prosecute wars overseas to defend America, if you are willing to surrender to Vicente the Conqueror, and every other nickel-and-dime-store, banana republic leader, on your own shores?
The dead-enders desperately want to suppress a national debate on such controversial questions. They are content to blindly follow the Bush brothers, who have outdone the Democrats in their support of affirmative action. (The Democrats only knew how to support affirmative action variously through criminal conduct and rationalizations that even the leftwing federal bench found increasingly incredible. Conversely, in Texas and Florida, the supposedly far-right Bushes developed methods of stealth affirmative action that were acceptable to the federal bench.) And so, the GOP is heading lemming-like off the cliff, with millions of amnestied Hispanics due to join Hispanic citizens, in voting 2-1 Democrat, and disgusted whites staying home from the polls, or voting for a Sovereignty Party or suchlike.
GOP dead-enders are saying, in effect, ‘To hell with the Constitution, and to hell with the equal protection of the laws for whites who cannot afford pricey attorneys, cannot afford to either move out of school districts being destroyed by blacks and immigrants or send their kids to snobby private schools, or get their kids into overpriced, private universities (OPUs), in spite of radical affirmative action (diversity). And guess what? Millions of whites will say, "To hell with the GOP!" And good riddance to the privileged cowards and opportunists who live off the party. They are no better -- and ultimately no different -- than the well-to-do lefties who cheer on a gang of blacks mugging a lone white.
So George W. Bush will win in 2004 … and in 2008, people will be talking about GOP “midgets.” In the meantime, if any Republican approaches you with talk of “containment,” go for your wallet with one hand, and your gun with the other.
I would amend the above only slightly. But amend it, I must. I would amend the second sentence to recognize two things, to read as follows: "Only those citizens of the Untied States, who have no knowledge of history, the law of nations, the profound personality differences between peoples, or what the Fifth Commandment actually means, take special pride in describing the American nationality as, by definition, independent of race and blood, etc."
Certainly any American who understands history, the law or psychology of nations, or what is involved in honoring one's parentage, understands that the sophomorish view referred to is inane and rationally indefensible, however passionately it may be stated by the indoctrinated.
Incidentally, the United States, correctly, require the plural form of the verb. It is a plural concept, the States that are united.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
As a lifetime student of the political processes, I can absolutely assure you that this is very far from certain. There are a great many imponderables. Frankly, I think that Bush will get somewhere between 39 and 61% of the vote, but at this juncture, with a very, very unpredictable 10+ months to go, anyone who tries to be more definite than that is whistling in the dark. For example, Goldwater had already passed JFK in some polls, right before the assassination. He ended up with only 39%. For example, the Senior Bush appeared unbeatable, the year before the election. The rest, there is history. Lincoln appeared headed for defeat in 1864 until some major victories gave him greatly enhanced credibility.
Those who believe that the victory in Iraq will be a plus next year, are not considering all of the factors, there either. For example, the Cox ticket, which reflected the Wilsonian legacy, less than two years after the victory in World War I--I think every rational person will concede that World War I was a bigger event than the war in Iraq--didn't even get near to that 39%, I have given as the bottom of the likely range.
The writer has given rather compelling reasons for many of us to look elsewhere--not in 2008, but starting here and now. He underestimates the power of his own argument.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I had hoped that in 2003, President Bush would make some concessions to the Conservatives, who gave him his edge in 2000. I have waited throughout the year, for that concession. There has been none. Indeed, he has only acted decisively and effectively, when he was advancing the ideology of the Left--as with the Medicare drug extension;--as with having Americans, as opposed to Iraqi oil, fund a rebuilding of Iraq;--as with his continued failure to effectively seal the Southern border. I have waited, throughout this year, for some reason to support his reelection, and he has failed to provide it.
While he could use the "bully pulpit" to expand Medicare, and put together a bipartisan alliance to extend that clearly unconstitutional program; he has failed to use the bully pulpit to put together a bipartisan alliance, to get his more Conservative Judicial appointees approved. He has twisted arms for what was important to the Left; he has not twisted arms to put Conservatives on the Bench--his promise in 2000 to all of us.
But enough. He has another 8 hours to demonstrate that he really wants the vote of traditional Conservatives. I will not criticize the man further, at this time.
On the other hand, the entire Democratic field are absurd; one more ridiculous than the next. But America is simply too important to vote for the lesser of two evils. I cannot and will not vote for evil, under any label, for any man to succeed into the office of George Washington, as President of the United States.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.